DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE is a widespread problem these days. Many Christians know the pain of divorce, and some have remarried. Not surprisingly, many of them wonder about the spiritual ramifications of their situation.
This topic comes up frequently from callers to my daily radio show. In this article, I share the specific details from the Bible and Catholic teaching that I raise when the issue comes up on the show.
Divorced Christians who’ve never attempted remarriage, or who have received from the Church what is known as an “annulment,” are not the focus here. Rather, it’s Christians who divorce and remarry without going through the annulment process who should heed the danger of their spiritual situation.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage is anchored squarely on Christ’s teaching:
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Greek: μοιχεία, moicheia), and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31–32).
The Catechism says,
“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384).
“Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society” (CCC 2385).
“It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage” (CCC 2386).
This is why God said, “I hate divorce . . . so take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless” (Malachi 2:16).
Note that God does not hate people who get divorced, nor does He hate them for getting divorced. He hates divorce itself because of its destructive effects: breaking the marriage contract, separation, pain, chaos, alienation, and the incalculable damage it causes to the husband and wife, their children, extended family, friends, and even to society itself.
When the Rich Young Man asked Christ what he must do to go to heaven, He responded, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Among those he listed was “You shall not commit adultery” (Matthew 19:16–19).
In Matthew 19:3–10:
“Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’”
Some argue that the phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” constitutes an “exception clause” that allows for divorce and remarriage in cases where one or both spouses commits adultery. But this is a misreading of the text.
The Greek word here for unchastity, porneia (πορνεία), refers to sexual unlawfulness precisely because the two “spouses” are not validly married (cf. John 4:17–18), even though they live as if they were. In such cases, to separate and then marry someone else would not constitute adultery, since the two parties were not validly married to begin with.
The Lord was not giving an “exception” for adultery (moicheia), as porneia is sometimes misleadingly rendered into English versions of the Bible. He speaks of the sexual unlawfulness of the union between the man and the woman itself because the arrangement itself is porneia.
King Herod Antipas and his “wife” Herodias make a prime example of this biblical warning against sexual unlawfulness (Matthew 19:9). Even though they “married,” they were not validly married in the eyes of God, which is why St. John the Baptist denounced this sham marriage, declaring, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). She was the wife of Herod’s brother Philip.
For his part, St. Paul condemns another sordid situation in which an unnamed Christian man was living as if married with his own father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-5). Similarly, Jesus confronts a “married” woman who was living with a man as if married:
Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
The woman answered him, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.” (John 4:16–18)
A valid marriage, however, cannot be dissolved. As the Lord said:
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’”
(Matthew 19:3–6)
St. Paul adds:
“[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2–3).
Anyone who imagines that divorce and remarriage is not serious in God’s eyes should ponder this warning:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
That passage might trouble someone who is divorced and remarried but who never went through the annulment process and received from the Church a declaration of nullity (i.e., “an annulment”). If so, he or she should feel troubled. His conscience is warning that something is spiritually very wrong.
If you are in this situation, contact a Catholic priest for sacramental confession and to get advice on how to correct things.
As a professor of canon law and experience of working in a Tribunal, there is confusion, even among clergy, regarding the proper application of convalidation. This is often rooted in the confusion between a defect of canonical form and a lack of canonical form.
Ordinary canonical form is described in Canon 1108 and stipulates that a valid marriage is contracted by a proper member of the clergy and before two witnesses (typically the best man and maid of honor). If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the bishop or his delegate has the right of dispensing the Catholic party from the form in individual cases, which we often see for mixed marriages (Can. 1127).
The Church allows a convalidation of a marriage in cases where there was a defect of canonical form. For example, one of the two witnesses lacked the use of reason because he was inebriated and incapable of comprehending the manifestation of consent, or a visiting priest was outside his territory without proper delegation to assist at the wedding. These defects are typically not the fault of the couple.
However, there is no convalidation for a LACK OF CANONICAL FORM.
If a baptized Catholic gets civilly married (a complete lack of canonical form), THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE – that Catholic party is in a CIVIL UNION.
If later, that Catholic party wants to have the marriage “blessed,” they can’t, because there’s NOTHING TO BLESS because there was no marriage. The Church does not bless civil unions!
They will need to have a valid Catholic wedding where they exchange consent following canonical form. This is why we should avoid language that suggests a couple in an invalid marriage because of lack of form can “have their marriage blessed” or convalidated.
We see this commonly in cultures such as Mexico where couples have to have a separate civil marriage ceremony and a “Church” sacramental marriage ceremony, but the “Church” wedding is often delayed until later. Even though they are legally “civilly” married, in the eyes of the Church, this couple is in an invalid civil union that cannot later be convalidated.
If a baptized Catholic gets married by a Justice of the Peace or by a non-Catholic minister without a dispensation, they are not married! They’re in a civil union that’s legally recognized by the state, but not in a marriage recognized by God and the Church.
For baptized Catholics, there is only sacramental marriage.
